Joe Ortiz' THE END TIMES PASSOVER! This is one of Joe's blog sites which is the title to one of his books that refute the Rapture to Heaven mythology. Ours is "Empowerment" theology, Not "Replacement" ~
The Old Testament church was not to be replaced, but it would be embolden. (Matthew 16:18; Isa. 49:13-23; 60:1 4). "Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar, (Proverbs 30:5-6)."

Friday, April 05, 2013

Are
Christianity and politics compatible? Can individual Christians ever involve
themselves in the political arena for the betterment of society? Should the
Church look to the power of politics to affect moral reform within America?
Such questions are important for us to consider, particularly since
evangelicals are growing more fond of political strategies to combat the rising
tide of secular humanism. We believe that the following points may help to
clarify the believer’s relationship to government and politics.

1. Christians may
involve themselves in the political arena as individuals, but it is not
the place of the Church (corporately speaking) to change political/governmental
institutions. Our Lord has not given His Church a political agenda, but a
spiritual mandate to proclaim the Gospel and disciple the nations (Matthew
28:19-20). Such a mandate far transcends any political or cultural mission.
Interestingly, the early church, living under a much more oppressive government
than we in America, willingly submitted to Rome and never once attempted to
form a political party or change Roman laws. They refused to allow any
political crusade to take priority over the Gospel. They had a heavenly mission
and eternal goals as opposed to temporal ones. They weren’t merely interested
in making a better society; they wanted to completely transform
it with the message of the Gospel. If the Gospel is truly "the power of
God unto salvation," (Romans 1:16), why would we preach anything else? Why
are so many sincere, but misguided Christians today, down-playing the
centrality of the Gospel for a message of moral reform through political
action? Have not our priorities become rather mixed?

2. As ambassadors for
Christ, we are not to disobey civil government (except, of course, when they
compel us to disobey God’s Word – Acts 5:29), but subject ourselves to it
(Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-17) and pray for such rulers and
authorities so that we might live a tranquil life (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

3. We must understand
that spiritual results can only be achieved through spiritual means.
Genuine moral reform will never come by merely changing laws, but by changing
the hearts and minds of people. This means that we must recover the art of
persuasion (although, ultimately, it is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit
to convince and convict humans – John 16:8). As evangelicals, out greatest
power is not found in protest, but in Gospel proclamation – for, indeed, if the
Gospel is truly "the power of God unto salvation" (Romans 1:16), why
would we ever turn to political rhetoric and ideology?

Strange
as it may sound to some, the problems we face in America today are not
primarily political or even moral, but theological and spiritual. It is because
people are alienated from a holy God and possess no knowledge of Him and His
ways, that we are experiencing massive hedonism within our land. The remedy,
therefore, must be primarily theological and spiritual. This, no political or
moral crusade can ever rectify. The great apostle to the Gentiles has said it
well: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the
flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely
powerful for the destruction of fortresses" (2 Corinthians 10:3-4; cf.
Ephesians 6:10-18). As a political insider and former presidential aide to
Richard Nixon, we would be wise to listen to the words of Charles W. Colson:

Today’s
misspent enthusiasm for political solutions to the moral problems of our
culture arises from a distorted view of both politics and Christianity – too
low a view of the power of a sovereign God and too high a view of the ability
of man. The idea that human systems reformed by Christian influence, pave the
road to the Kingdom (or at least, to revival) has the same utopian ring that
one finds in Marxist literature. It also
ignores the consistent lesson of history that shows that laws are most often
reformed as a result of powerful spiritual movements (not vice versa). I know
of no case where a spiritual movement was achieved by passing laws ("The
Power Illusion." Power Religion, ed. Michael S. Horton [Chicago:
Moody Press, 1992] p.32).

4. In voicing our
opinions and beliefs to those in government, we must never adopt an "in
your face" attitude. Arrogance and shouting down one’s political opponent
may be the way of the world, but it is not the way of Christ. We are, instead,
to reply with "discretion and discernment" as did Daniel to Arioch
(Daniel 2:14). We are to manifest the kind of respectful demeanor which Paul
displayed before Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 26; cf. Titus 3:1-2; Colossians
4:5-6; 1 Peter 3:15). Regardless of our personal feelings towards our political
leaders, we are commanded to "honor the King" (1 Peter 2:17).

5. We must not view
any country or human government as our ultimate home – "for our
citizenship is in heaven" (Philippians 3:20). For the time being, we are
"strangers and exiles on the earth" (Hebrews 11:13; cf. 1 Peter
2:11). We are looking forward to a "heavenly country" (v.16) and God
Himself has promised to prepare a city for us (v.16). This being true, why
would we so entangle ourselves in the affairs of this world that we forget our
heavenly country and the Divine mandate which Christ has given to His Church?

6. We should not be
ignorant of the major political and cultural controversies of our day. As
evangelicals, we are called to use our minds for the glory of God and to test
all issues, whether religious or political, by the standard of Scripture (Acts
17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). At the same time, however, we must
recognize that the Bible will not always be as clear or direct in addressing
the issues we currently face. Thus, "we should have Christian approaches
to politics, recognizing that there will be a variety of these, but we should
not expect to produce ‘the Christian political program’" (Mark A. Noll,
Nathan O. Hatch, George M. Marsden, The Search for Christian America
[Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1989] p.139).

7. Because of God’s
common grace, Christians can work with unbelievers in attempting to promote
justice and civic peace – and we can do so not only because it is good for
believers and religious liberty, but because it is good for all people
(Galatians 6:10; 1 Thessalonians 5:15). Writing on this very matter, the
authors of The Search for Christian America have stated:

Some
Christians speak as though there is an absolute antithesis between Christian
and non-Christian thought, neglecting the degree to which Christians themselves
are hampered by sin and error, and the degree to which God’s common grace
allows substantial room for communication and cooperation among all people in
practical everyday life .

.
. Because we all live in God’s world, we have, in God’s common grace, some
basis for discussing and shaping public policy without explicit appeal to the
Bible. In fact, people from all nations of the world have been able to agree on
many principles of justice and human interest, as for instance, in agencies and
statements of the United Nations. That they violently disagree on other points
or on the application of their common principles should not obscure this degree
of commonality. So Christians and non-Christians may be able to agree on the
value of charity toward the poor and the starving, on the undesirability of
genocide, that literacy should be encouraged, on the virtue of loyalty to
friends and parents, and on many other things (pp.135-136).

8. Since the arrival
of Christ, we must not look upon any nation as God’s chosen nation or even upon
America as a "Christian nation." "The New Testament teaches
unmistakably that Christ set aside national and ethnic barriers and that He has
chosen to fulfill His central purposes in history through the Church, which
transcends all such boundaries . . . The Lord of history has not aligned His
purposes with the particular values of any given country or civilization"
(The Search for Christian America, p.24).

9. The evangelical
church of the 50s and 60s rightly criticized the liberal churches for
abandoning its responsibility to proclaim the Gospel and, turning instead, to
the "social gospel." Ironically, evangelicals today are doing the
very same thing which they condemned liberal churches for doing by seeking to
better society, not through Gospel proclamation and intelligent discussion of
biblical truth, but through political power strategies, legislation, and
efforts to move the unbelieving majority to live like Christians.

It
seems that our primary concern is not with accurately preaching a God-centered
Gospel and its implications for both pagans and believers, but with abortion,
traditional values, and a romanticized view of America as a "Christian
nation." While these might be important issues, it is not the Gospel nor
is it a message that mankind most needs to hear. How said it is that some
Christians are more versed in conservative politics than in the writings of
both the Old and New Testament’s. Evangelicals need not repent of their involvement
in politics per se, but only of their obsession with it. As Charles W.
Colson has said:

That’s
one of the weaknesses of the evangelical movement today – that it is so obsessed
with politics. It believes that there’s got to be a political solution to
everything . . . You don’t change a culture by passing laws. You change a
culture by changing people’s habits. That’s why the Gospel is so central to the
possibilities of cultural reformation in American life (Interview, "Running
the Race," Rutherford [Journal], August 1996, p.15).

10. We must remember
that political solutions are not ultimate, but temporal. We cannot afford to
look to human government (even the best ones) for providing the final answers
to the moral problems that we face. For that, we must look to Scripture and the
God who is portrayed within its pages. "Do not trust in princes, in mortal
man, in whom there is no salvation" (Psalm 146:3); "Thus says the
Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his
strength’" (Jeremiah 17:5).

What
Some Christian Leaders Are Saying About Bringing America Back to God (with my
response):

1.Robert Dugan,
Director of the National Association of Evangelicals’ Office of Public Affairs,
believes that he can offer a strategy for "those who want to reshape
society through the political process" (Winning the New Civil War,
p.88).

The
above statement is theologically naïve – for when has any society been reshaped
for spiritual and moral good through the "political process"? Genuine
moral reform will simply never come through the "political process",
but only through lives transformed by the sovereign hand of God working through
the greatest message in human history: The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2.Randall Terry
has said, "If righteousness is going to prevail; if paganism is going to
be turned back, then we must move to restore this nation to being a Christian
Nation. Otherwise, we will lose the war for America’s soul, and the United
States as we know it will perish. And if we are going to reform and rebuild our
country, we’re going to have to deliberately infiltrate the power bases of
America. We’ll deliberately have to raise up men like John Adams and Teddy
Roosevelt to be morally correct, not politically correct statesmen" (Why
Does A Nice Guy Like Me Keep Getting Thrown in Jail? pp.80-81).

Terry
naively assumes that righteousness will prevail only when America is restored
to being a "Christian Nation." But, again, like so many Christians
involved in the contemporary "culture war," he has failed to learn
the lesson of history which teaches that political power and legislation can
never truly reform the human heart. Terry also wrongly assumes that America was
a "Christian Nation." While America has, indeed, been influenced by
Christian values, it has never truly been a "Christian Nation,"
unless, of course, we wish to water-down the theological meaning of the term
"Christian" and reduce it to one which merely denotes common morality
and virtue. The only "Christian Nation" that the New Testament speaks
of are those who have been spiritually regenerated by the Holy Spirit (Matthew
21:43; 1 Peter 2:9) and who reside – not simply in the United States – but in
every country and region of the world (Revelation 5:9; 7:9).

One
further point. Contrary to what Terry and others may believe, God has not
called us to convert whole nations – nor is our "success" dependent
upon doing so. We are, indeed, called to faithfully and accurately proclaim the
Gospel to those who are unregenerate, but we are not expected to convert them –
only God can do that (John 1:12-13; Acts 16:14; Romans 9:15-18; 1 Corinthians
1:30; 2 Timothy 2:24-26; James 1:18). Thus, we are called to be faithful to the
message of the Gospel, not necessarily numerically successful in
"results" (as commonly defined) – for it is God alone who adds to His
Church (Matthew 16:18; Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 3:6-7; Colossians 2:19).

Evidence
that the Early Church Did Not Have a Political Agenda:

1. We need to remember
that the first-century period had many of the same problems that we have today
(abortion, crime, drunkenness, immorality, poverty, corrupt and evil rulers,
etc.), yet they never pursued any form of moral reform through political
action, nor did they align with the numerous political/social zealots existing
at that time who wanted to either reform or overthrow Rome. They had,
undoubtedly, every reason to do so, but never did.

2. Because the early
church recognized that man’s greatest problem was sin and, thus, the remedy was
spiritual in nature, they did not preoccupy themselves with making a society,
that was under God’s judgment, outwardly virtuous – but, instead,
concentrated their efforts on faithfully articulating the Gospel and living
lives which demonstrated the reality of their claims (1 Peter 2:11-17).

3. Because Jesus
Himself taught that "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36);
because the early Christians recognized that "the weapons of our warfare
are not of the flesh," but spiritual in nature (2 Corinthians 10:3-4);
because they recognized that "our struggle is not against flesh and
blood," but against demonic forces (Ephesians 6:12); because they
recognized that their true citizenship was in heaven (Philippians 3:20); because
they viewed themselves as "strangers and aliens" within this world (1
Peter 2:11); and because they desired a "heavenly country" (Hebrews
11:16), they did not concentrate their efforts to pursue political action or
even social reform (although the early church did seek to provide for the
poor). They had set their minds upon heavenly realities and eternal goals,
rather than seeking to apply temporary bandages upon a society that was
destined to eternal judgment.

Contrary
to what some critics might assume, this was not a case of being "so
heavenly-minded that they were no earthly good." It was, instead, a clear
indication that their priorities were in order. It must be kept in mind that
the early Christians still sought to minister to the physical needs of people
(Mt. 26:8-9; Acts 6:1; Galatians 2:10; 1 Timothy 6:18; Titus 3:14). Thus, they
were not guilty of neglecting the physical and necessary aspects of man under
the guise of a false piety. Even still, this was a far cry from any form of
political action and even further from the modern day "social gospel"
which seeks to place any political or social cause under the banner of the
Gospel.

4. The early
Christians of the first century lived under a much more oppressive government
than we in America, and yet they willingly submitted to Rome and never once
attempted to form a political party or even change Roman laws that they deemed
immoral. They had much more justification for doing so than we in America, but
never did.

5. When both Paul and
Peter dealt with the issue of slavery in their respective epistles (Philemon
and 1 Peter 2:18-20), they did not, in any way, encourage Christians to revolt
against the evils of slavery, but to remain obedient to their masters – even
cruel ones! But we must ask, if the early church possessed such political and
social zealotry, why didn’t they begin a labor party to protect the rights of
slaves? Why didn’t they gather all of the runaway slaves and form a protest
march all the way to Rome? Even if one argues that this would not have been
feasible under the tyrannical government of Rome, couldn’t they have done
something more than to simply encourage slaves to remain obedient to their
masters and endure their abuse? To those who possess the mindset that all, or
at least most, of our problems can be solved through the political process,
this does not make much sense. But to those who possess the mind of Christ and who
recognize the inherent limitations of political/social action, it is Divine
wisdom.

6. When Christians
were being slandered and persecuted by their pagan neighbors, Peter didn’t
suggest that the Christians start a "Christian Anti-Defamation
League," but instead, encouraged them to "patiently endure it"
and to not retaliate (1 Peter 2:12-21; 3:13-17; 4:3-4, 12-19). Does this sound
like the kind of advice that would come from one who was politically oriented?
Would the current leaders of the "Religious Right" encourage their
followers to do the same?

7. It’s interesting
to note that when Paul stood before the governing authorities on several
occasions, he never once engaged such rulers in political or social discourse.
No doubt, these instances were grand opportunities for him to complain about
such social evils as slavery and excessive taxes, yet he apparently never did.
Why would Paul, if he was indeed so politically minded, allow such golden
opportunities to pass by? Instead, as in the case of Felix recorded in Acts
24:24-25, we find him speaking to this ruler about faith in Christ,
righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come! Was Paul, in this
instance, guilty of being so heavenly-minded that he was no earthly good?
Shouldn’t he have argued vigorously for human rights and social reform (issues
which would have affected a broader range of people), than simply limit his
discussion to soteriological matters? Once again, where the political zealot
sees a missed opportunity, the discerning believer sees fidelity to the Gospel
and priorities that are in order.

Evidence
that America is Not, Nor Was Founded, As A "Christian Nation":

1. The founding of
our country was a mixed bag of both Christian and Enlightenment
influences. To say that it was solely Christian ideas and influences
which shaped the founding of the United States, is to be naïve of American
history.

2. While some of our
founding fathers were Christians, many of them were not. For instance, John
Adams opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and spoke of the deity of Christ as
"this awful blasphemy" which it was necessary to get rid of. Thomas
Jefferson, likewise, was anti-supernaturalistic, eventually producing his own
version of the Bible which jettisoned all of the recorded miracles – including
the resurrection! James Madison believed that the government should in no way
sanction national days of prayer. The truth is, while all of the founding
fathers believed in a Divine Creator, they did not necessarily adhere to
distinctly Christians ideas about Him – nor did they all believe that salvation
was found solely in the person of Jesus Christ. Many of them were Deists rather
than Christians. Thus, when we find statements from them which speak of
"God" or a "Creator," we must immediately ask, "What
God do they have in mind?" "Which Creator are they referring to – the
impersonal god of Deistic belief or the holy and personal God revealed in
Scripture?

Some
well-meaning believers have tried to argue that all or at least the vast
majority of the founding fathers were Christian because they were enrolled as
members of Christian churches. But while it is true that many of them were
registered members of Protestant church bodies, this does not at all mean that
they were spiritually regenerate (which is the only kind of Christian that the
New Testament speaks of) any more than the people today, who regularly attend
Christian churches, are truly converted. It must be remembered that church
attendance during this period was common and it was quite fashionable and
proper to consider oneself "Christian." Moreover, this does not mean
that the majority of the founding fathers viewed life from a distinctly
Christian worldview nor possessed a mature biblical-theological foundation in
Christian doctrine. And even if, for the sake of argument, they were all
genuine Christians, this is far from proving that they were seeking to
establish a "Christian Nation."

3. There is no
mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ in America’s founding documents (Declaration
of Independence and The Constitution). In fact, the Constitution doesn’t even
make a single reference to God! Isn’t this rather odd for a nation that’s
supposedly a "Christian Nation"? Why would supposedly Christian men
leave out the founder of their religion in such important documents that will
serve as the basis of their "Christian Nation"?

4.
The
United States was the first Western nation to omit explicitly Christian
symbolism (such as the cross) from its flag and other national symbols. Why
would the founding fathers neglect to employ such Christian symbolism on the
national flag if, indeed, it is true that they were seeking to establish a
"Christian Nation"?

5. In 1797, the
United States made a treaty with the Islamic nation of Tripoli. This particular
treaty was negotiated under George Washington, ratified by the Senate, and
signed by President John Adams. But notice what is said in the actual document:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims, . . . it is
declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall
ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two
countries" (Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the
United States [Government Printing Office, 1930], Vol. II, p.365).

Follow by Email

Google+ Followers

Google+ Followers

Total Pageviews

The End Times Passover

Joe Ortiz has the distinction of being the first Mexican American in US history to conduct a talk show on an English-language, commercial radio station. He began his broadcasting career in 1971 at KABC TALK RADIO 790 AM in the highly competitive Los Angeles media market. He went on to become an award-winning broadcaster, news reporter and newspaper columnist in Los Angeles for over 30 years. Semi-retired, he promotes his three books on theology, is the President of the "Official Tom Flores Fan Club" and manages several blogs and web sites, and his public relations consulting company at Joe Ortiz Associates ~